browntimmy:grumpfuff: letrole: grumpfuff: So, what you're saying is, you are mad at the deniers for politicizing this?

The problem with global warming is that it was politicised early on, by the sorts of people who saw it as a way enabling wealth redistribution and centralised planning. There was also the bonus result of diminishing the power and influence of western industrialized nations in favour of backwards agrarian societies left out to dry after the end of the cold war.

Global Warming is not really about the climate, especially here in this thread. Global Warming is a basically political issue that has some limited involvement with thermometers. So if you're pure of heart and above all that rubbish, and genuinely concerned about the climate, you need to worry a bit less about applying asinine labels like 'denier', and more about purging your own ranks of opportunistic goons with a political axe to grind.

Trolling is a religion.

I'd really like to have a frank Q & A with letrole or GeneralJim where they explain the appeal of trolling. I can see how it could be amusing for 5-10 minutes if you're bored, immature, and have zero hobbies, but these guys have been doing it for years. Is it really like that cartoon where they think we're all bashing our keyboards in frustration when in reality we're just slightly annoyed we wasted 8 seconds reading what they wrote? What are they getting out of it? Is negative attention better than no attention when you reap no other benefits from it?

People wouldn't believe in conspiracy theories if their leaders didn't systematically strip them of their faith in humanity. One day, after hearing about the Land of the Free really being the land of forced sterilizations, lynchings, warmongering, manifest destiny, genocide, and all manner of deceits and deceptions, they wake up so jaded that they unquestioningly accept yet another terrible to add to the parade, no matter how ridiculous or absurd it appears at face value.

Tatterdemalian:Farking Canuck: The fact that deniers always fall back on politics shows that they have absolutely zero interest in the actual science. For them it is an us vs. them debate ... facts are irrelevant as long as your side wins.

Or maybe it shows that we recognize the greater threat. Science, by itself, doesn't kill anyone. Politics, on the other hand, does, and politics supported with false and fraudulent "scientific consensus" has killed so many millions in the last century that the number of victims may never be known for certain.

/ask anyone who suffered the "better world" that the scientific consensus of Social Darwinism was supposed to create//that was AGW's big mistake, not waiting for all the Holocaust survivors to die out before starting up the "bandwagon science" again

You're demonstrating the exact problem that Farking Canuck is talking about - ignoring the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents.

If there is any jumping on bandwagons to be had here, it lies in the attitude you've put forward that values a politically-based "greater threat" rather than the actual evidence. Also note that it is this attitude that greatly contributed to the examples you yourself have invoked.

Damnhippyfreak:You're demonstrating the exact problem that Farking Canuck is talking about - ignoring the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents.

I admit I'm not a meteorologist, nor a climatologist, nor a car washer. I frankly don't care that much about the weather.

I also don't have to study the mechanics of poisoning a baby with saline, and then ripping it limb from limb, and finally reassembling it in a catch-pan like a macabre jigsaw puzzle to make sure it was completely removed -- to know that abortion is murder.

letrole:Damnhippyfreak: To be fair, it is also the hyperbolic opposition to perceived political opponents and simplistically framing this issue in terms of opposing ideologies (such as you've done here) that has also contributed to the politicization.

That's also why recognising criminal behaviour and responding accordingly is a contributor to rising crime rates. Circular logic shall make you free.

This doesn't make much sense as you've phrased it here.

All I can suggest is that it is a grounding in evidence and empiricism that allows one to better explain a physical phenomenon. Circular logic (being self-referential) does not deal well with evidence and empiricism.

The thing is that if one wishes to get away from circular reasoning in this way, you have to value evidence and empiricism more than your own preconceptions in the first place. An example of not doing this would be to do something like assessing actual temperature data in the context of fabricated data based on your own preconceptions.

letrole:Damnhippyfreak: You're demonstrating the exact problem that Farking Canuck is talking about - ignoring the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents.

I admit I'm not a meteorologist, nor a climatologist, nor a car washer. I frankly don't care that much about the weather.

I also don't have to study the mechanics of poisoning a baby with saline, and then ripping it limb from limb, and finally reassembling it in a catch-pan like a macabre jigsaw puzzle to make sure it was completely removed -- to know that abortion is murder.

Case in point. When you ignore the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents, one is untethered to the actual physical phenomenon the discussion is ostensibly about. One can bring up all sorts of unrelated issues that have as their only relevance also belonging to the broad ideological brush one uses to paint their perceived political opponents.

Damnhippyfreak:To be fair, it is also the hyperbolic opposition to perceived political opponents and simplistically framing this issue in terms of opposing ideologies (such as you've done here) that has also contributed to the politicization.letrole: That's also why recognising criminal behaviour and responding accordingly is a contributor to rising crime rates. Circular logic shall make you free.Damnhippyfreak: This doesn't make much sense as you've phrased it here.

It's a simple comparison. You're blaming the reaction by one side, as being on par, and sharing blame, with the initial actors. You may as well blame the rising crime rate, at least in part, on those who seek to write laws and keep statistics and and put certain criminal behaviours in check.

So the problem is the leftish hysteria of global warming. Nobody on the right woke up and saw some rain clouds and thought weather was a communist plot to be stopped, or better yet, a scientific yet natural way of exploiting the proletariat. The politicisation came fully from the left.

letrole:Damnhippyfreak: To be fair, it is also the hyperbolic opposition to perceived political opponents and simplistically framing this issue in terms of opposing ideologies (such as you've done here) that has also contributed to the politicization.letrole: That's also why recognising criminal behaviour and responding accordingly is a contributor to rising crime rates. Circular logic shall make you free.Damnhippyfreak: This doesn't make much sense as you've phrased it here.

It's a simple comparison. You're blaming the reaction by one side, as being on par, and sharing blame, with the initial actors. You may as well blame the rising crime rate, at least in part, on those who seek to write laws and keep statistics and and put certain criminal behaviours in check.

That's more clear. I tried to phrase what I said in a neutral way that applies to a variety of views, not just one side.

That out of the way, your analogy is invalid for the important reason that it involves some sort of grounding in evidence, such as keeping statistics or some sort of criminal behavior that can be investigated empirically. I can alter the analogy a bit - attempting to figure out whether a crime has been committed by examining the morals of the supposed criminal would be more apt. Neither this, nor, as I stated before, "hyperbolic opposition to perceived political opponents and simplistically framing this issue in terms of opposing ideologies" value the actual evidence. One does not prove malfeasance through opposing politics, whether in the courtroom or in science.

Damnhippyfreak:Case in point. When you ignore the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents, one is untethered to the actual physical phenomenon the discussion is ostensibly about.

But there is no actual physical phenomenon. It's just not there. It's getting harder and harder to sell this shiat to the rubes, because it's already 2014 and nothing has happened.

You do understand the meaning of petitio principii aka 'begged question'? You see, you keep trotting out the idea that the problem exists as support for the argument that something must be done about the problem that exists because you trotted out the solution to the problem. Dizzy yet?

So keep blaming coppers who arrest people for drugs as the reason there's a drug crime problem.

letrole:Damnhippyfreak: Case in point. When you ignore the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents, one is untethered to the actual physical phenomenon the discussion is ostensibly about.

But there is no actual physical phenomenon. It's just not there. It's getting harder and harder to sell this shiat to the rubes, because it's already 2014 and nothing has happened.

You do understand the meaning of petitio principii aka 'begged question'? You see, you keep trotting out the idea that the problem exists as support for the argument that something must be done about the problem that exists because you trotted out the solution to the problem. Dizzy yet?

So keep blaming coppers who arrest people for drugs as the reason there's a drug crime problem.

[facepalm]

It is you who is begging the question, right there in bold. What I was arguing for is examining the physical evidence in the first place that would allow one to assess whether such a statement is true or not as opposed to ignoring evidence in favor of political arguments. It's easier to see if you trace back the post you were responding to:

Damnhippyfreak:[...]You're demonstrating the exact problem that Farking Canuck is talking about - ignoring the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents. [...]

Come on now. That you know what begging the question means strongly suggests that you know why it's a fallacy. Why are you engaging in this yourself?

jjorsett:MrBallou: Aw, fark. Is it time for a "______________, therefore global warming is a fraud and you're all poopyheads" thread again already?

Gotta keep beating those drums or the lie won't become truthy, huh derpers?

I see the global warmongers have passed into the phase where they think they no longer have to prove their claims, just roll their eyes and act like anyone who questions them is stupid. The high school girl approach to debating.

Sounds just like atheists. Oops, am I not supposed to point that out? My bad.

letrole:So keep blaming coppers who arrest people for drugs as the reason there's a drug crime problem.

Forgot to drive my point home.

Coppers are supposed to arrest people for drugs because there's some evidence that they've done the crime,not because they see the criminal as being an opponent.

Again, when you ignore the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents, one is untethered to the actual physical phenomenon the discussion is ostensibly about. This enables someone to bring up things unrelated to the actual phenomenon of interest, such as the Holocaust, or social darwinism, or abortion.

Ignoring the science in favor of of the politics is as misguided as arresting someone for a drug offense because you don't like the music they're playing.

Damnhippyfreak:All I can suggest is that it is a grounding in evidence and empiricism that allows one to better explain a physical phenomenon.

The main physical phenomenon is mostly just in the form of charts and graphs. More and more, the basis for the data of these projections is called into disrepute.

Did you yourself hop on a plane and/or time machine to circle the globe collecting the data that you used to cobble together some sort of graph? Or, more likely, did you use the compromised data that's the topic of the thread?

It's a good thing nobody used that data at all, or else there would be a fair number of retractions of papers and some really loud screaming about wasted research time going on right now.

It's a farking joke. Goobers wearing lab coats pretending to be scienticians, and nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right, just as long as it's in line with the all-holy consensus.

Damnhippyfreak:Ignoring the science in favor of of the politics is as misguided as arresting someone for a drug offense because you don't like the music they're playing.

No. Not ignoring the science. The science has lost all its scienticity. The science is now just about as trustworthy as an advert that shows your brand of coffee tastes better because housewives were polled in a supermarket. You have big graphs to prove it.

letrole:Damnhippyfreak: All I can suggest is that it is a grounding in evidence and empiricism that allows one to better explain a physical phenomenon.

The main physical phenomenon is mostly just in the form of charts and graphs.

Which, unfortunately, shows how little you know about this topic, or science in general. Besides the fact that any physical phenomenon can be characterized as such, charts and graphs are illustrative - the actual proof lies not in in charts and graphs, but the underlying data and analysis.

letrole:More and more, the basis for the data of these projections is called into disrepute.

That's fine. One can ask questions - the problem arises when people ignore the answers, or do not actually assess such claims. What matters is not whether someone makes a claim or not, it's whether such a claim is supported by the evidence or not that matters.

letrole:Did you yourself hop on a plane and/or time machine to circle the globe collecting the data that you used to cobble together some sort of graph? Or, more likely, did you use the compromised data that's the topic of the thread?

It's a good thing nobody used that data at all, or else there would be a fair number of retractions of papers and some really loud screaming about wasted research time going on right now.

You're begging the question, something that you know isn't solid reasoning. That changes have occurred in a data set (as it has many times in the past) does not somehow mean that it is compromised. Again, you actually have to examine the evidence in order to determine if such a claim is true - just asking the question tells you nothing.

letrole:It's a farking joke. Goobers wearing lab coats pretending to be scienticians, and nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right, just as long as it's in line with the all-holy consensus.

It is the poor reasoning such as yours that is the joke. Here, instead of actually assessing the evidence in a rational way, you're calling people names and dismissing scientific research as some sort of religious belief.

If indeed "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", it's because of attitudes like yours. Again, you're part of the problem.

Damnhippyfreak:It is the poor reasoning such as yours that is the joke. Here, instead of actually assessing the evidence in a rational way, you're calling people names and dismissing scientific research as some sort of religious belief.If indeed "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", it's because of attitudes like yours. Again, you're part of the problem.

So, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted? How many will acknowledge even tacitly that the prior data was bollocks?

letrole:Damnhippyfreak: It is you who is begging the question, right there in bold

so show it, and don't use a graph

Alright:

letrole:But there is no actual physical phenomenon. It's just not there.

This is begging the question since you're arguing against my argument of pointing out the problems with ignoring the science in favor of the politics and the threat of perceived political opponents by assuming that there is "no actual physical phenomenon". The a priori assumption that the phenomenon does not exist begs the question of whether one should examine the phenomenon in the first place rather than the politics.

letrole:Damnhippyfreak: Ignoring the science in favor of of the politics is as misguided as arresting someone for a drug offense because you don't like the music they're playing.

No. Not ignoring the science. The science has lost all its scienticity. The science is now just about as trustworthy as an advert that shows your brand of coffee tastes better because housewives were polled in a supermarket. You have big graphs to prove it.

Show me the weather.

We would seem to agree in that we shouldn't ignore the science. The rest of the post is bare assertion. Do you now accept that ignoring the science in favor of the politics involved is also not a good thing?

letrole:Damnhippyfreak: It is the poor reasoning such as yours that is the joke. Here, instead of actually assessing the evidence in a rational way, you're calling people names and dismissing scientific research as some sort of religious belief.If indeed "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", it's because of attitudes like yours. Again, you're part of the problem.

So, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted? How many will acknowledge even tacitly that the prior data was bollocks?

Since when does my attitude affect scienticious protocol?

This is the attitude right there. You're part of the problem that "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", if you continue to jump to conclusions like this without any evidence.

Because you do not know the reason for something does not mean you get to make up reasons in its place. For the record, gaps in the fossil record also don't mean that God is responsible for evolution either.

letrole: So, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted? How many will acknowledge even tacitly that the prior data was bollocks?

Damnhippyfreak:This is the attitude right there. You're part of the problem that "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", if you continue to jump to conclusions like this without any evidence.

No dear, the problem is that you think science actually exists, but the concept of bollocks escapes you. The prior data was bollocks. Again, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted?

letrole:letrole: So, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted? How many will acknowledge even tacitly that the prior data was bollocks?

Damnhippyfreak: This is the attitude right there. You're part of the problem that "nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right", if you continue to jump to conclusions like this without any evidence.No dear, the problem is that you think science actually exists, but the concept of bollocks escapes you. The prior data was bollocks. Again, how many papers will be retracted, or at least corrected and resubmitted?

You know when you've been soundly refuted not only when all you've got is repeating a bare assertion, but that science itself somehow does not exist.It'sepistemological hara-kiri :D

If you find it problematic that"nobody really gives a shiat if the research they did is actually right" then stop being part of the problem.

The first pic is projections from (based the use of RCP scenarios) the IPCC AR5, the second explicitly ends in 2013, and third does not end in 2000, but was current to when the graph was made in 2013. It's sometimes hard to judge these things when the axis is so coarse-grained, but note for the last one the HadCRU record does extend past 2000, contrary to your claim.

GeneralJim:Shakin_Haitian: Even the libtards in the Department of Defense are buying into this climate change malarkey.Of COURSE they are -- they're part of the government. Obama's been firing any general officer who won't agree to fire on American citizens, so what's a bit of going along with a government scam?

So, are you STILL of the opinion that scientific facts are swayed by the belief in them people have? Unbelievable.

[www.evolvefish.com image 380x253]

Tyson in Cosmos argued that human caused global warming is real so you posting his picture is quite appropriate.

grumpfuff:browntimmy: grumpfuff: letrole: grumpfuff: So, what you're saying is, you are mad at the deniers for politicizing this?

The problem with global warming is that it was politicised early on, by the sorts of people who saw it as a way enabling wealth redistribution and centralised planning. There was also the bonus result of diminishing the power and influence of western industrialized nations in favour of backwards agrarian societies left out to dry after the end of the cold war.

Global Warming is not really about the climate, especially here in this thread. Global Warming is a basically political issue that has some limited involvement with thermometers. So if you're pure of heart and above all that rubbish, and genuinely concerned about the climate, you need to worry a bit less about applying asinine labels like 'denier', and more about purging your own ranks of opportunistic goons with a political axe to grind.

Trolling is a religion.

I'd really like to have a frank Q & A with letrole or GeneralJim where they explain the appeal of trolling. I can see how it could be amusing for 5-10 minutes if you're bored, immature, and have zero hobbies, but these guys have been doing it for years. Is it really like that cartoon where they think we're all bashing our keyboards in frustration when in reality we're just slightly annoyed we wasted 8 seconds reading what they wrote? What are they getting out of it? Is negative attention better than no attention when you reap no other benefits from it?

GeneralJim:Unbelievable.... With proof of fraud right in their faces, the Fark leftist monkey congress keeps farking that chicken. It's GOTTA be paid trolls. Nobody who can get on the Internets is that friggin' stupid without getting a paycheck for it.[lh6.googleusercontent.com image 800x446]

I've made this point before, but I'll make it again. You've been here for years trying to convince people that global warming is a fraudulent conspiracy or some such nonsense. Instead, you've managed to convince most people here not that you're right about global warming, but instead that you're actually mentally ill.

Can you at least admit that you really suck at making arguments? I mean, it does take a special kind of stupid to fail at an argument so thoroughly that people actually think you're insane instead of correct.

cameroncrazy1984:m00: LordJiro: For that matter, the government giving energy companies incentives to clean up their act (whether it's by responsibly disposing of their waste products, or by investing in cleaner energy), while discouraging pollution is ALSO not socialism.

Very few people are advocating that we turn America fully socialist. There are shades of gray between Gilded Age America and Socialism, and right now, the we're leaning dangerously towards the former.

Actually, the Gilded Age wasn't that bad. Sure there were Robber Barons, but there are Robber Barons today. The only difference is that at least in the Gilded Age at least the Robber Barons were making products that people freely purchased. Today the Robber Barons exist because government takes money from the poor and gives it to them in the form of subsidies and contracts.

Socialism isn't that bad either. Scandinavia is probably the most socialist place on earth right now, and Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc are nice places to live.

The US right now is completely off that spectrum. We're just a straight up kleptocracy -- the government takes what it would under socialism, but gives nothing back in the form of services.

What the fark bizarro America do you live in where there are no government agencies at all? No roads? No minimum wage? No courts? No police? No fire departments? No army/navy/marines/Air Force?

Oh wait, sorry, you were trying to be pithy and failed miserably.

Oh good comments aren't closed.

I have to laugh at you for thinking we get anywhere near what we pay for.

Military "services" corporate interests (free trade). FDA "services" big pharma. As for roads, try driving cross country on the easy coast and not hitting a toll.

Socialism implied the benifit goes to humans (I can't say people because corporations are now those).

ringersol:Is anyone optimistic that we won't still have them ten years from now?

I don't know about internet arguments, but I am optimistic that 10 years from now we will have substantially altered our emissions trajectory, resulting a much less negative future. And to me, that's what's really important.